IS AGE IMPORTANT? TESTING A GENERAL VERSUS A DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR*

We tested competing hypotheses derived from Gottfredson and Hirschis (1990) general theory and Moffitt's (1993a) developmental theory of antisocial behavior. The developmental theory argues that different factors give rise to antisocial behavior at different points in the life course. In contrast, the general theory maintains that the factor underlying antisocial behavior (i.e., criminal propensity) is the same at all ages. To test these competing predictions, we used longitudinal data spanning from age 5 to age 18 for the male subjects in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Using reports from three sources (parents, teachers, and the boys themselves), we estimated second-order confirmatory factor models of antisocial behavior. These models provided consistent support for the developmental theory, showing that separate latent factors underlie childhood and adolescent antisocial behavior. Moreover, we found that these childhood and adolescent factors related in ways predicted by Moffitt's developmental theory to four correlates of antisocial behavior: Childhood antisocial behavior was related more strongly than adolescent antisocial behavior to low verbal ability, by per activity, and negative/impulsive personality, whereas adolescent antisocial behavior was related more strongly than childhood antisocial behavior to peer delinquency. The two underlying latent factors also showed the predicted differential relations to later criminal convictions: Childhood antisocial behavior was significantly more strongly associated with convictions for violence, while adolescent antisocial behavior was significantly more strongly associated with convictions for nonviolent offenses.     

Perceived effects of concealed handgun ownership by private citizens among law enforcement officers in Texas

On January 1, 1996, a new law took effect in Texas granting certain state citizens the privilege to carry a concealed handgun on their person for the first time since 1871. As a result of this dramatic shift in state law, Texas is now among the growing number of states across the nation who have adopted similar statutory provisions in one form or another. While at least one empiricals study of citizen’s attitudes toward concealed handgun ownership was conducted prior to the law’s effective date, no similar efforts were undertakens to assess the beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of the state’s law enforcement officers about this important social policy. The present study was therefore undertaken in response to the lack of serious attention which the issue of concealed handgun ownership among private citizens has received as it directly relates to the law enforcement profession. Subjects for this study (N=327) were drawn from four Texas law enforcement agencies representing various organizational sizes and missions. While the responses of officers who participated in the study indicate optimism about the law’s potential to deter various types of crime, they also reflect a certain degree of concerns about concealed handgun ownership among private citizens especially as this policy directly relates to perceive inadequacies in statemandated requirements and issues affecting officer safety.     

Intractable Conflict from the Bottom Up

Negotiation Journal -     

Learning from the Danish case: A comment on Palle Svensson's critique of the Franklin thesis

Abstract. Palle Svensson in this issue of EJPR has objected to the characterisation of Danish voters made by Franklin and others who, in various publications, expounded the thesis that on issues of low salience, referendum votes tend to follow party lines. Svensson finds evidence that the Maastricht Treaty was not an issue of low salience to Danish voters in the ratification referendums conducted there, and gives other details of the evolution of public opinion regarding Europe that clarify the circumstances in which our thesis should apply. In the light of his arguments, this Comment presents a more nuanced version of the thesis that learns from the Danish case, and should be of greater utility than our earlier version in helping to interpret the role of government standing in referendum outcomes.